Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. · ¶34

Second, Amarin may not rely on “mere omissions, inactions, or nonfeasance” to allege active inducement. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471, 489 (2023). With a healthy stretch of the imagination, one might believe that some medical providers could read between the lines and draw improper conclusions from the skinny label’s omission of the CV Limitation of Use and the press releases’ failure to “mentio[n] that [Hikma’s] approved use was limited to the far-lesser-known SH indication.” Brief for Respondents 23, 26. But we look for affirmative “statements or actions” precisely to avoid “trenching on regular commerce” based on such a contingent chain of events. Grokster, 545 U. S., at 935, 937. Otherwise, “ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.” Twitter, 598 U. S., at 489.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.